s  p  a  e  c  h 


OF 

|MR.  JOSEPH  H.  PEYTON,  OF  TENNESSEE, 

ON 

THE  GENERAL  APPROPRIATION  BILL. 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  5,  1844. 


Mr.  PEYTON,  who,  though  deeply  averse  to  speaking,  excused  him- 
gself  for  doing  so  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  expected  of  him  by  his 
| constituents  ;  but  since  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and  Mr.  Polk,  had 
gbeen  brought  into  the  debate  by  other  gentlemen,  he  should  claim  to  fol- 
|  low  in  the  footsteps  of  his  “  illustrious  predecessors.” 

I  Mr.  Clay  had  been  traduced  and  vilified  by  all  who  had  spoken  from 
I  the  Democratic  side  of  the  House.  He  had  been  compared  by  Mr. 
IRathbun,  of  New  \ork,  to  Caesar,  to  Caligula,  and  to  Cromwell.  He 
jjasked  all  to  look  at  his  acts,  to  contemplate  his  public  history,  and  to  look 
I  at  the  conduct  of  those  of  the  party  who  opposed  him,  and  then  say  which 
|  were  the  acts  of  a  Cromwell.  He  asked  who  it  was  that  had  been  at  the 
jcommencement  of  this  Congress,  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  majesty  and 
I  supremacy  of  the  laws  ?  The  Whig  party,  with  Mr.  Clay  at  its  head.  On 
I  the  other  hand,  who  were  they  who  had  come  up  into  this  hall,  and  by  a 
j sweeping  vote  nullified  the  districting  law?  And  who  were  they  who  at 
|  this  very  hour  held  seats  here  directly  in  the  teeth  of  law  ?  Who  had  car- 
Sried  out  those  doctrines  of  nullification  which  South  Carolina  had  only 
J  threatened,  and  openly  trampled  the  Constitution  under  foot  ?  The  De- 
Bmocratic  pai  ty. 

Look  at  one  of  the  first  acts  of  this  Congress,  immediately  after  its  or¬ 
ganization.  The  Journal  of  the  House,  the  record  of  its  proceedings  had 
been  deliberately  mutilated,  by  order  of  a  Democratic  majority  The 
Whigs  had  entered  their  solemn  protest  against  the  right  of  the  nullifying 
recusants  to  seats  in  this  House,  and  placed  that  protest  on  the  journal  •  but 
where  was  it?  It  had,  by  an  unconstitutional  order,  been  stricken  from  its 
place,  and  was  no  more  to  be  found  there.  Yet  he  talked  about  Caligulas  ! 
j  Mr.  P .  then  referred  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate  of  Tennessee. 

|  The  Whigs  in  that  State  had  a  majority  of  votes  on  joint  ballot,  and  Sen¬ 
ators  of  the  United  States  for  that  State  had  always  been  thus  elected 
But  a  set  of  men  now  characterized  there  and  elsewhere  as  “  the  immortal* 
thirteen,”  of  which  his  colleague  (Mr.  Andrew  Johnson)  was  one  af¬ 
ter  having,  twice  so  voted,  (for  Felix  Grundy,)  as  soon  as  it  was  found 
that  there  was  a  majority  for  Whig  Senators,  suddenly  declared  that 
mode  of  electing  Senators  fo  be  unconstitutional  ;  and  so  great  were 
their  qualms  of  conscience,  that  when  the  vote  was  to  be  taken,  they  stub¬ 
bornly  retained  their  seats,  and  thereby  prevented  the  election,  and  kept 
their  Slate  unrepresented  in  the  other  branch  of  the  National  Legislature. 

It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  the  consciences  of  gentlemen  should  have 
been  so  quiet  when  voting  for  Mr.  Grundy,  and  that  they  should  have 
been  so  much  disturbed  when  called  upon  to  vote  for  a  Whig  under  pre¬ 
cisely  similar  circumstances.  1 

These  (Mr.  P.  said)  were  some  of  the  tendencies  of  the  Democratic 


party.  A  gentleman  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Duncan)  had  made  a  speech,  not 
long  since,  in  which  he  represented  the  Whigs  about  the  city  of  Cin¬ 
cinnati  as  a  set  of  swindlers,  cut-throats,  and  traitors ;  and  had  observed 
that  it  was  the  native  tendency  of  Whiggery  to  lead  to  corruption,  an¬ 
archy,  and  despotism.  Mr.  P.  had  therefore  presented  a  specimen  of  the 
tendencies  of  this — not  Jeffersonian,  no,  but  this — modern,  this  latter-day r 
this  Joe  Smith,  this  barn-burning,  this  Dorrite  Democracy,  which  held 
that  the  people  had  a  right  to  act  in  masses  against  both  law  and  Consti¬ 
tution.  These  “  immortal  thirteen”  in  Tennessee  had  nullified  the  action 
of  their  own  legislative  body.  Here  was  one  of  the  tendencies  of  modern 
Democracy. 

As  to  the  Democracy  of  “  Governor  Dorr,”  its  whole  history  was  one 
of  the  most  infamous  affairs  that  disgraced  the  annals  of  our  country.  His 
party bclaimed  the  right  in  their  unorganized  mass,  as  the  great  magazine  of 
all  power,  to  change  laws  and  overturn  constitutions  at  will  ;  and,  when 
offered  the  very  things  they  desired,  scorned  to  receive  them  through  either 
legislature  or  convention.  There  was  no  perceptible  difference  as  to  the 
latitude  of  suffrage,  or  any  other  democratic  right,  between  the  constitu¬ 
tion  they  attempted  to  frame  and  that  agreed  to  in  a  lawful  assembly  ;  yet 
they  would  not  take  it,  because  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  constituted 
authorities.  Yet  the  Democratic  party  were  ready  to  back  them,  and  did 
vote  them  countenance  and  aid  in  proceedings  more  anarchical  than  any 
in  the  days  of  Danton,  Marat,  or  Robespierre.  When  this  doctrine  pre¬ 
vails,  your  laws,  your  constitutions,  vested  rights,  rights  of  property,  mar¬ 
riage  contracts,  the  peace  and  order  of  society,  will  depend  upon  the  whim, 
the  passion,  and  the  caprice  of  the  hour.  The  prevalence  of  such  a  doc¬ 
trine  would  be  the  death  knell  of  liberty,  and  would  at  once  resolve  society 
into  its  original  elements,  w  hen  brute  strength,  rapine,  and  violence,  w  ould 
usurp  the  place  of  justice,  order,  and  civil  government. 

As  to  the  charge  of  Federalism,  which  had  been  brought  against  the 
Whigs,  who,  he  asked,  were  they  who  w'ere  in  favor  of  giving  to  the  Pres¬ 
ident  the  kingly  pow'er  of  destroying  the  legislation  of  both  Houses  of 
Congress  at  his  mere  will  and  pleasure  ?  Was  it  the  Whigs?  Mr.  Clay 
was  against  this  power.  He  held  that  ought  to  be  the  law'  of  the  land 
which  the  People’s  Representatives  in  both  branches  of  the  Legislature 
declared  should  be  the  law  ;  but  the  Democrats  par  excellence  were  for 
vesting  all  power  in  one  man,  and  allowing  him  to  cut  off  the  heads  of  as 
many  legislative  acts  as  might  suit  his  own  notions  or  selfish  purposes>. 
Of  these  two  classes  of  politicians,  which  were  the  Federalists  and  which 
the  Republicans  ? 

Rut  to  quit  principles,  and  go  a  little  into  the  personnel  of  Federalism. 
Where  were  the  Federalists  actually  found  ?  He  referred  to  the  old  anti¬ 
war  Federalists! 

He  would  begin  wnth  James  Buchanan  ;  and  wrhat  had  been  his  sen¬ 
timents  ?  He  says  : 

“  The  Democratic  Administration  declared  war  against  commerce.  They  were  not  satisfied 
with  depriving  it  of  the  protection  of  a  navy,  but  they  acted  as  though  they  had  determined  upon- 
its  annihilation. 

*  *  •**<**  * 

“  Time  will  not  allow  me  to  enumerate  all  the  other  wild  and  wicked  acts  of  the  Democratic 
Administration. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

“  After  they  had,  by  refusing  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  continuance  of  its  charter,  embar¬ 
rassed  the  financial  concerns  of  the  Government,  they  rashly  plugged  cs  into  a  war. 


3 


**“*  degreC,0,he  'but  disgraceful  in  the 

JtaftkL'lfn”/  *5‘  ™  h“V.e  obt,aincd  a  Peace-  b“d  md  ‘^graceful  as  it  is. 
form  of^emmZ."  )S  m  setting  themselves  in  array  against  J present  admirable 

0ri°I^r- Xan  Bu/en’s  l¥e)  United  States  Senators 


.  -j - .«u«uiciiaiidie  united  state 

S  rowMaine,  in  iSia,  assisted  to  burn  James  Madison  in  effigy.'- 

P  Mr  V  n  »  l[forB,e5ly]  United  S,ates  ®ena(or  from  New  Jersey,  and 
^?oor  of  Congress':  ’  ”ade  ,he  follo'vin§  dfecla>'a'‘<>n  on  the 


a„d  acled 

<  “,He^  Hubbard,  another  Senator  of  the  same  stamp,  and  who  is  now 


^ -flectipn  dJri^th^J^taSrn- 


ary  war  he  should  have  been  a  Tory.” 

I  relied*  Vhlf^  “T"”"*  '”,h»  d«l>°«”M,  ,„<|  brf 

t»5BEn>:i3i‘'g3  ssras; 

ing  extracts :  *  H  P  0pini0ns  may  be  gathered  from  the  follow- 

complete  triumph  of  UrerSenLte<^SC^K>: myZiblel1 h  1  fi”d  !?J'6elf  cnab,cd  t0  announce  the 
have  produced  the  change  in  fevor 'of  FedenZn T^h  .‘n  ¥  C,aUSe  °f  native  country 
of  my  hopes,  the  summit  of  my  wishes  ”  “The  friuhtfnS|  n"  laVe  1  amVed  at  the  acme 

head  before  the  Heaven -derived  spirit  of  Federalism* of  Democracy  begins  to  droop  its 
roams  the  Lybian  wastes,  and  jo/s  to  drench^ Ms tuskTin  ^  “T^  aS  thatwhi<'h 

0V6^r!l  Wple“Xtentj0f  °U1"  c  u^ry  a  pcrniciou^blas^  ^hmfwiriiers  eimry6 thing’hTouch^”3^011 

in”v'  c>  en  B,Jant’ed,tor  ofthe  New  York  Evening  Post  the  lead 

■tr.1tu  “of : TComTjeffeSoT-  ^  8a'’e  ‘he  f°llowinS  P°etical  P- 


‘‘And  thou  the  scorn  of  every  patriot’s  name, 

I  hy  country  s  ruin,  and  her  council’s  shame  ! 

Foor  servile  thing !  derision  of  the  brave  ' 

VV  ho  erst  from  Tarleton  fled  to  Carter’s  cave , 

1  hou,  who,  when  menaced  by  perfidious  GauL 
llid  prostrate  to  her  whiskered  minions  fall, 

And  when  our  cash  her  empty  bags  supplied, 

JJid  meanly  strive  the  foul  disgrace  to  hide ; 

Go,  wretch,  resign  the  presidential  chair, 
ihsclose  thy  secret  measures,  foul  or  fair, 

Go,  search  with  curious  eye  for  horned  frogs, 

Mid  the  wild  wastes  of  Louisiana  bogs : 

Or,  where  the  Ohio  rolls  its  turbid  stream, 
p  1  g  for  huSe  bones,  thy  glory  and  thy  theme, 

Go,  scan,  Philosophic,  thy  - charms, 

£Hd  smk  supinely  in  her  sable  arms, 

Fut  quit  to  abler  hands  the  helm  of  State, 
tt  xNor  lmaSe  on  thy  country’s  fate.” 

ffssa:  jars,  r+arx!  ^ 


4 


diary,  and  notorious  as  the  author  of  the  insult  from  whence  sprang  into 
existence  the  1  Log  Cabin  devices,’  which  so  perplex  our  opponents,  de¬ 
clared  in  1837,  that  he  would  4  never  ask  forgiveness  for  the  political  sin 
which  stamped  upon  him  the  name  of  F ederalist ;  we  delight  in  the  name. 
Again,  in  1838,  he  said  : 

«  To  us,  the  name  of  Federalism  is  a  subject  of  no  reproach.  We  rejoice  to  hear  it,  and  hop® 
that  our  efforts  to  honor  and  support  it  may  be  such  as  it  merits.  While  others  are  endeavoring  to 
hold  it  up  to  scorn,  and  are  deserting  its  standard  for  the  purpose, °f 

from  other  hands ,  it  shall  be  our  glory  to  support  its  cause,  and  our  feeble  powers  shall  always  be 
employed  to  display  its  beauties  to  others .” 

Now,  then,  he  would  again  inquire,  where  was  Federalism  to  be  found. 
He  thought  he  had  placed  it  on  the  right  side  of  the  party#line 

[Mr.  Ingersoll  here  asking  the  loan  of  the  book  from  which  the  a  ove 
quotations  had  been  made,  Mr.  P.  replied :  «  Tatte  good  care  of  it,  and 
do  not  derange  its  contents  ;  it  is  an  excellent  magazine  of  Whig  ammu¬ 
nition,  and  1  mean  to  draw  on  it  for  some  missiles,  I  hope,  to  hurl  at  the 

polk  stalks  of  Tennessee.”]  .  A  A.  ..  •  »  * 

1  And  now  as  to  this  farce  of  a  nomination  at  Baltimore.  A  distinguished 
gentleman  from  New  York  so  denominated  it  publicly,  and  without  the 
slightest  reserve  ;  declared  openly  that  it  ought  to  meet  with  no  respect 
from  the  country,  and  that  James  K.  Polk  could  not  get  one  electoral  col¬ 
lege,  unless  that  of  South  Carolina,  and  that  would  depend  on  the  mere 
whim  and  caprice  of  John  C.  Calhoun.  .  . 

[This  annunciation  produced  very  great  sensation  in  Y  , 

Mr.  STETSON,  of  New  York,  inquired  of  Mr.  P.  who  the  New  York 

member  referred  to  was.  .  ..  , 

Mr  PEYTON  replied,  that  for  the  name  of  the  gentleman,  and  all  the 
circumstances,  he  would  refer  the  gentleman  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Black,  of 
South  Carolina.  He  would  tell  him  who  he  was. 

Mr.  STETSON  repeated  his  inquiry,  observing  that  the  statement  ha 

taken  him  completely  by  surprise.  • 

f  Mr.  Black,  of  South  Carolina,  advanced  across  the  Hall  to  the  pos 

tion  occupied  by  Mr.  P.,  and  requested  Mr.  P.  t0  rePeat  th®  an^Uaf®  *!' 
leged  to  have  been  used  ;  which  Mr.  P.  did,  and  Mr.  B.  bowed  assent, 

^Mr!  PEYTON  replied,  it  was  a  member  on  this  floor,  a  distinguished 
member  of  the  House,  a  great  friend  to  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and, ,n  f“‘»  c??' 
sidered  as  his  right-hand  man  here.  That  gentleman  had  ^e?'a'ed  i  c  ‘ 
Polk  could  not  get  the  vote  of  one  electoral  college,  unless  in i  South  C 
lina,  and  that  depended  on  the  whim  and  caprice  of. John ,  C.  Calhoun.  If  the 
gentleman  would  apply  to  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South  Carol,"a> 
£is  political  friend,  who  was  good  democratic  authority ,  he  could  Det 

the  information  he  desired. 

Mr.  P.  was  about  proceeding  in  his  speech,  when 
Mr.  STETSON  again  interposed,  (Mr.  P.  not  yielding  the  floor,)  a 
said  that,  as  Mr.  P.  was  the  only  one  wlio  had  referred  to  the  mem  e 
from  the  New  York  delegation,  it  was  to  him  alone  he  oug..t  to  apply  for 

PEYTON  said  he  would  not  be  thus  interrupted  :  there  was  a  point 

where  courtesy  ceased  to  be  a  virtue.  Baltimore  in- 

A  majority  of  the  members  of  the  late  convention  went  t  ,  , 

Structed  and  pledged  to  vote  for  Mr.  Van  Buren;  and with 
the  convention  assembled,  charged  whoever  shod Id  do >  ...  y 

treachery.  And  what  was  the  result .  A  majority  di  \  •  — 


5 


Buren  ;  but  for  this  most  Democratic  assembly  a  simple  majority  was  not 
enough.  True,  Thomas  Jefferson  thought  a  majority  ought  to  rule,  and 
held  the  maxim,  vox  populi  vox  Dei ,  from  which  there  was  no  appeal  but 
to  arms,  which  he  held  to  be  the  appeal  of  tyrants.  But  these  Democrats 
were  not  content  with  Jeffersonian  Democracy.  A  bare  majority  was  not 
enough  for  them;  they  must  have  two-thirds.  A  gentleman  (Mr.  Mc- 
Clernand,  of  Illinois)  said,  that,  with  the  Texas  feeling  in  his  favor,, 
their  candidate  would  get  the  votes  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  A  majority  !  Suppose  he  did,  that  would  not  do.  According  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  late  Baltimore  convention,  he  must  have  two-thirds  to 
elect  him.  He  hoped  gentlemen  would  carry  out  their  principles. 

The  nomination  of  James  K.  Polk  would  fall  on  the  ears  of  the  people  of 
this  country  like  a  thunder  clap  from  a  clear  sky.  No  ;  that  was  too  grand* 
too  terrific,  a  figure.  The  idea  is  better  illustrated  by  a  line  from  an  ancient 
author  :  “  Parturiunt  monies ,  nascitur  ridiculus  mus.”  The  mountain  is 
in  labor,  but  a  ridiculous  mouse  comes  forth  !  James  K.  Polk  a  candidate 
for  the  Presidency  !  A  man  never  dreamed  of,  and  (if  we  were  to  believe 
the  Globe)  a  man  not  qualified  for  the  place.  There  had  been,  in  that 
paper,  a  recent  war  between  a  Tennessee  Democrat  and  an  Alabama 
Democrat.  One  of  these  excellent  Democrats  was  opposed  to  Mr.  King 
as  a  candidate  for  the  Vice  Presidency,  because  he  had  not  signalized  him¬ 
self  in  Congress  during  the  war,  and  left  no  memorials  to  distinguish 
his  name.  The  other  (the  Alabama  Democrat)  tauntingly  observed,  that  this 
came  with  a  bad  grace  from  one  who  advocated  James  K.  Polk,  whom  he 
'  charged,  in  substance,  with  being  a  coward,  and  unworthy  of  being  Vice 
President  on  that  ground  ;  and,  in  support  of  the  charge,  brought  up  a  scene 
between  Mr.  Polk,  when  Speaker,  and  Mr.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  who,  as  they 
were  retiring  from  this  Hall,  took  him  by  the  arm,  and  said:  “  You  are  the 
contemptible  tool  of  a  petty  tyrant.”  The  question  would  then  seem  very 
naturally  to  arise,  if  Mr.  Polk  was  too  much  of  a  coward  to  be  Vice  Pres¬ 
ident,  is  he  fit  to  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy?  He 
proclaimed  hirnself  for  annexation.  Now,  suppose  annexation  should  lead 
to  war:  would  the  Alabama  Democracy  support  such  a  candidate  to  be 
commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  ? 

Extract  from  an  article  published  in  the  Globe  of  January  19,  1844,  in  reply  to  “  A  Tennessee 

Democrat.  ” 

“But  why  attack  Colonel  King  ?  Why  advert  to  his  earliest  legislative  history  ?  Does  he  feet 
that  the  political  capital  of  Governor  Polk  is  quite  too  limited  to  secure  a  nomination  from  the  Re¬ 
publican  party,  unless  he  can  pull  down  the  fame  of  others  whose  shadow  has  fallen  across  the  path 
of  his  posthumous  bantling  for  the  Vice  Presidency  ?  If  so,  let  me  warn  *  A  Tennessee  Democrat* 
that  his  disparagement  of  Colonel  King  will  add  nothing  to  the  political  capital  of  Governor  Polk. 

“But  if  he  will  convince  me  that  there  is  a  well-founded  suspicion — a  reasonable  doubt — of  thfc 
personal  courage  of  Colonel  King,  I  pronounce  him,  without  hesitation  or  qualification,  totally  un¬ 
fit  for  the  office  of  Vice  President  of  the  United  States.  I  care  not  how  honorable  a  man  may  be, 
if  he  is  a  coward  he  cannot  maintain  his  honor ;  and  hence  it  is  such  a  man  is  disqualified  for  the 
office  of  Vice  President. 

“  Now,  sir,  Colonel  King  has  never  been  insulted  day  after  day  ;  and,  above  all,  he  was  never 
caught  roughly  by  the  arm,  when  escaping  from  the  Capitol,  pulled  round,  and  told  that  he  was  the  • 
*  contemptible  tool  of  a  petty  tyrant !’  I  pledge  my  head,  if  he  is  ever  so  treated,  he  will  resent  the 
insult  in  the  proper  way.  Will  ‘A  Tennessee  Democrat’  do  the  same  in  regard  to  Governor  Polk  ? 

“  what  are  the  facts  in  regard  to  Governor  Polk  5  He  has  been  twice  repudiated  in  his  own 
State  by  large  majorities — defeated  by  an  inexperienced  politician  ;  and  it  is  not  pretended  that  hia 
name  would  add  one  particle  of  strength  to  the  ticket  in  any  State  of  this  Union.  Why,  then,  talk 
of  his  selection  as  the  candidate  of  the  party  ? 

“  Again  we  arc  told  :  ‘  If,  on  the  contrary,  you  do  not  run  Governor  Polk,  you  may  lose  Ten¬ 
nessee.’  Will  the  selection  of  Governor  Polk  prevent  that  result }  He  has  been  run  twice  for 
Governor  of  that  State  lately,  and  has  been  defeated  both  times  most  signally.  This  would  seem 
to  be  conclusive  that  Tennessee  cannot  be  carried  by  the  Democracy  if  Governor  Polk  is  upon  th® 


6 


ticket.  If  this  he  a  legitimate  conclusion,  it  is  due  to  the  principles  we  profess,  not  to  jeopard  their 
success  by  vain  attempts  to  force  upon  the  people  of  Tennessee  a  man  whom  they  have  twice  re¬ 
fused  to  honor,  notwithstanding  the  supposed  « deep,  bold,  and  lasting  impress  left  by  Governor 
Polk  on  our  public  affairs.’ 

“  The  truth  is,  it  will  not  do.  Governor  Polk  has  no  greater  claims  upon  the  people  of  this 
Union  than  any  other  man  of  equal  ability  who  has  faithfully  maintained  the  principles  of  his  party. 
There  are  now  at  least  one  hundred  men  in  the  Union  who  have  served  their  party  as  long,  as  ably, 
and  as  faithfully  as  Governor  Polk  ;  whose  claims  are  fully  equal  in  every  respect  to  his,  but  whose 
names  have  never  been  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  Vice  Presidency,  and  possibly  never 
will  be. 

“  I  therefore  respectfully  suggest  to  *  A  Tennessee  Democrat’  to  abandon  that  system  of  puffing, 
blowing,  and  swelling,  by  which  a  toad  may  be  magnified  into  the  dimensions  of  an  [ox  ;  or,  if 
he  still  wishes  to  persevere,  let  him  do  so  upon  the  merits  of  his  own  subject ,  and  not  upon  the  de¬ 
merits  of  others.” 

These  were  Mr.  Polk’s  qualifications  in  a  military  point  of  view.  What 
were  his  political?  Why, he  had  been  found,  during  his  public  career,  on 
both  sides  of  almost  every  important  question.  Had  he  originated  or  given  a 
prominent  and  leading  support  to  any  great  measure,  or  any  great  and  con¬ 
trolling  system  of  policy  ?  None.  He  had  never  risen  higher  than  to  be 
a  mere  second-rate  man — a  tool  and  follower  of  some  great  man.  This 
had  been  his  character  all  his  life.  He  had  been  the  instrument  and  sub¬ 
servient  tool  of  Andrew  Jackson,  to  do  his  bidding,  whatever  that  might 
be.  Never  had  he  been  found  one-thousandth  part  of  an  inch  from  Jack¬ 
son’s  track,  wind  and  turn  as  it  might.  However  contradictory  his  meas¬ 
ures  or  opinions  might  be,  those  were  the  measures  and  those  the  opinions 
of  the  obedient  Mr.  Polk. 

He  had  been  strongly  opposed  to  the  sub-Treasury,  and  preferred  State  ( 
banks  as  places  of  deposite  for  the  public  money.  He  considered  them 
safer,  and  in  all  respects  to  be  preferred.  Where  did  he  stand  now? 
Now  the  sub-Treasury  was  the  only  safe  place. 

Mr.  P.  had  within  his  reach,  though  not  here,  a  very  precious  document 
concerning  this  same  J.  K.  Polk — an  extract  from  a  circular  which  Governor 
Polk  published — in  which  he  came  out  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  and 
expediency  of  works  of  internal  improvement  by  the  General  Government 
within  the  States.  Now  he  is  opposed  to  it.  He  was  just  so  in  regard  to  every 
thing.  This  is  the  champion  the  great  Democratic  party  had  brought  out  for 
the  four-mile  heat  in  the  great  contestnext  fall!  A  little,  broken-down,  twfice- 
distanced,  shuffling  poney  of  Tennessee,  to  run  against  the  great  American 
Eclipse  !  [Much  laughter,  and  some  punning  among  the  Democratic  mem¬ 
bers.]  There  was  a  turning  up  of  the  nose,  a  sense  of  the  ridiculous,  in 
the  bare  idea  of  the  parallel.  One  had  been  identified  with  all  the  great 
events  and  measures  in  our  political  history  for  the  last  40  years.  A  man — 
ay,  every  inch  a  man — in  heart  and  intellect,  in  firmness,  grasp,  and  com¬ 
prehension  of  mind — a  whole  head  and  shoulders  above  any  man  that 
ever  had  made  a  foot-print  on  this  continent,  save  one.  There’s  the  ex¬ 
ception,  ( pointing  to  the  portrait  of  Washington. )  When  the  tyrant  power 
of  Great  Britain  was  seizing  our  citizens,  and  confining  them  in  the  loath¬ 
some  dungeon  of  a  prison-ship,  whose  voice  was  it  that  sounded  in  thunder 
tones  of  indignation  through  the  land,  loud  and  long  and  deep,  till  the 
whole  country  w*as  roused  to  resistance  and  war.  Henry  Clay’s.  And 
when  another  crisis  (the  Missouri  question)  arose  in  our  affairs — a  crisis 
which  shook  the  Government  of  the  country  to  its  centre,  which  caused 
the  good  man  and  the  patriot  to  turn  pale,  and  Jefferson  himself  to 
declare  that  it  fell  upon  him  like  an  alarm  bell  in  the  dead  hour  of 
night,  who  was  it  that  came  to  the  rescue,  threw'  himself  into  the 
breach^  and  saved  his  country  ?  Henry  Clay.  And  then,  in  that  other 


7 


^critical  and  trying  hour,  when  the  flag  of  disunion  was  raised  in  South 
Carolina,  and  the  laws  of  the  Union  were  resisted  at  the  cannon’s  mouth, 
while  we  had  in  the  chair  of  state  a  man  of  iron  nerve  and  lion  heart, 
who  swore  by  the  Eternal  that  the  laws  should  be  executed,  and  that  if 
one  gun  was  tired  by  South  Carolina,  “  he  would  hang  Calhoun  and  Mc¬ 
Duffie,  and  Hayne  and  Hamilton,  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  rebellion, 
as  high  as  Haman,”  who  was  it  that  came  again  as  our  deliverer,  with  a  heart 
deeply  penetrated  by  the  crisis  of  his  country’s  fate,  and,  casting  on  the 
issue  all  he  held  dear  in  life,  once  more,  by  his  prudence,  moderation,  and 
skill,  assuaged  the  angry  elements,  and  rescued  this  fair  land  from  the 
horrors  of  civil  discoid  ?  It  was  Henry  Clay.  When  the  hour  of  danger 
came,  there  was  he;  and  wherever  he  came,  danger  departed,  disorder 
fled,  and  public  prosperity  smiled  upon  her  restorer.  Now,  look  upon  this 
picture  and  then  upon  that — the  counterfeit  presentment  of  two  candi¬ 
dates.  u  ’Tis  Hyperion  to  a  Satyr.”  As  well  compare  a  “  mousing  owl”  to 
the  imperial  bird  of  Jove,  that  springs  aloft  and  soars  into  the  very  sun. 

Mr.  P.  wished  to  say  a  few  more  words  on  this  General  Polk — no,  not 
General,  he  never  rose  quite  as  high  as  that. 

A  voice.  “Colonel  Polk.” 

Another  voice.  “  Governor  Polk.” 

A  third  voice.  “  President  Polk.” 

Well,  Governor  Polk,  then,  said  Mr.  P.  He  had  a  document  in  his 
hand  which  would  show  what  were  General  Jackson’s  sentiments  in  rela- 
tion  to  a  protective  tariff',  so  vehemently  opposed  by  Mr.  Polk.  He  would 
read  it : 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Andrew  Jackson  to  Dr.  L.  H.  Coleman,  of  Warrington ,  North  Carolina. 

“  Washington  City,  Aprils,  1824. 

<c  Heaven  smiled  upon  and  gave  us  liberty  and  independence.  That  same  Providence  has  blessed 
us  with  the  means  of  national  independence  and  national  defence.  If  we  omit  or  refuse  to  use 
the  gifts  which  He  has  extended  to  us,  we  deserve  not  the  continuation  of  His  blessing.  He  has 
filled  our  mountains  and  our  plains  with  minerals — with  lead,  iron,  and  copper — and  given  us  a 
climate  and  soil  for  the  growing  of  hemp  and  wool.  These  being  the  great  materials  of  our  national 
defence,  they  ought  to  have  extended  to  them  adequate  and  fair  protection  :  that  our  manufacturers 
■and  laborers  may  be  placed  in  a  fair  competition  with  those  of  Europe,  and  that  we  may  have  with¬ 
in  our  country  a  supply  of  those  leading  and  important  articles  so  essential  in  war. 

‘ 1 1  will  ask,  what  is  the  real  situation  of  the  agriculturist ?  Where  has  the  American  farmer  a 
market  for  his  surplus  produce  ?  Except  for  cotton,  he  has  neither  a  foreign  nor  a  home  market. 
Does  not  this  clearly  prove,  when  there  is  no  market  either  at  home  or  abroad,  that  there  is  too 
much  labor  employed  in  agriculture  ?  Common  sense  at  once  points  out  the  remedy.  Take  from 
agriculture  in  the  United  States  six  hundred  thousand  men,  women,  and  children,  and  you  will  at 
once  give  a  market  for  more  breadstuff's  than  all  Europe  now  furnishes  us.  In  short,  sir,  we  have 
heen  too  long  subject  to  the  policy  of  British  merchants.  It  is  time  we  should  become  a  little  more 
Americanized ,  and  instead  of  feeding  paupers  and  laborers  of  England,  feed  our  own  ;  or  else  in  a 
short  time,  by  continuing  our  present  policy,  we  shall  all  be  rendered  paupers  ourselves.  It  is  there¬ 
fore  my  opinion  that  a  careful  and  judicious  tariff  is  much  wanted  to  pay  our  national  debt,  and  to 
afford  us  the  means  of  that  defence  within  ourselves  on  which  the  safety  of  our  country  and  liberty 
depends  ;  and  last,  though  not  least,  give  a  proper  distribution  to  our  labor,  which  must  prove  bene¬ 
ficial  to  the  happiness,  independence,  and  wealth  of  the  community. 

“I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

“  ANDREW  JACKSON.” 

These  were  those  declarations  of  General  Jackson  which  a  certain  mem¬ 
ber  near  him  had  imbodied  in  a  resolution,  and  asked  this  Democratic 
House  to  adopt,  as  expressing  its  sentiments.  And  who  were  they  who 
had  shrunk  from  such  a  motion  as  from  the  mouth  of  a  cannon  ?  Where 
were  the  Jackson  men  on  that  memorable  occasion  ?  Not  one  of  them — 
no,  not  one — would  stand  up  to  do  honor  to  the  sentiments  of  his  chief. 
The  only  friends  the  old  hero  had  in  the  House  that  day  were  the  Whigs. 


8 


,  no  could  ever  forget  the  scene  ?  Mr.  P.  had  often  witnessed  great  con¬ 
fusion  in  that  House,  but  never  had  he  seen  consternation  like  that.  What 
running  to  and  fro  !  what  countenances  !  what  consultations  !  If  a  ghost' 
had  risen  through  the  floor,  or  a  bomb  shell  had  fallen  upon  it,  scattering 
its  death-dealing  fragments  in  every  direction,  there  could  not  have  been 
witnessed  a  greater  exhibition  of  horror.  They  were  alike  afraid  to  adopt 
the  resolutions  or  to  reject  them,  lest  they  should  be  committed  on  the 
one  hand — or  on  the  other  should  seem  to  run  off  from  their  great  man. 
But  such  was  modern  Democracy  !  Such  were  Democratic  metamor¬ 
phoses.  Modern  Democracy  had  well  and  wisely  been  declared  to  be 
“  progressive” — a  sort  of  migratory  thing — its  track  like  the  track  of  a 
snake. 

‘  ‘  Tt  worbles  in  and  worbles  out, 

And  left  the  people  all  in  doubt, 

Whether  the  snake  that  made  the  track, 

Was  going  south  or  coming  back.” 

These  opinions  of  General  Jackson  are  fully  sustained  by  the  wise  and 
good  men  who  formed  our  noble  institutions. 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress,  January,  1790,  General  Washington, 
holds  the  following  language  : 

*  ‘  The  safety  and  interest  of  the  people  require  that  they  should  promote  such  manufactures  as 
tend  to  render  them  independent  of  others  for  essentials,  particularly  for  military  supplies.” 

In  various  messages  General  Washington  uses  similar  language  ;  but  I 
pass  over  them,  and  come  to  his  message  of  the  7th  December,  1796.  He 
says : 

“  Congress  have  repeatedly,  and  not  without  success,  directed  their  attention  to  the  encourage¬ 
ment  of  manufactures.  The  object  is  of  too  much  consequence  not  to  ensure  a  continuance  of 
their  efforts  in  every  way  which  shall  appear  eligible.” 

Mr.  Madison,  in  his  special  message  to  Congress  of  the  20th  of 
February,  1815,  holds  this  language  : 

“There  is  no  subject  that  can  enter  with  greater  force  and  merit  into  the  deliberations  of  Con¬ 
gress,  than  a  consideration  of  the  means  to  preserve  and  promote  the  manufactures  which  have 
sprung  into  existence,  and  attained  an  unparalleled  maturity  throughout  the  United  States,  during 
the  period  of  the  European  wars.  This  source  of  national  independence  and  wealth  I  anxiously 
recommend,  therefore,  to  the  prompt  and  constant  guardianship  of  Congress.” 

We  now  come  to  Mr.  Monroe.  He  says  in  his  message  of  the  7th  of 
December,  1819: 

“Uniformity  in  the  demand  and  price  of  an  article  is  highly  desirable  to  the  domestic  manufac¬ 
turer.  It  is  deemed  of  great  importance  to  give  encouragement  to  our  domestic  manufactures . 
In  what  manner  the  evils  adverted  to  may  be  remedied,  and  how  far  it  may  be  practicable  in  other 
respects  to  afford  them  further  encouragement ,  is  submitted  to  the  wisdom  of  Congress.” 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Jefferson  to  Mr.  Benjamin  Austin,  dated  January  9,  1816. 

“We  have  since  experienced  what  we  did  not  then  believe — that  there  exist  both  profligacy  and 
power  enough  to  exclude  us  from  the  field  of  interchange  with  other  nations  ;  that,  to  be  indepen¬ 
dent  for  the  comforts  of  life,  we  must  fabricate  them  ourselves.  We  must  now  place  the  manufac¬ 
turer  by  the  side  of  the  agriculturist.  The  former  question  is  suppressed,'  or  rather  assumes  a  new 
form  :  the  grand  inquiry  now  is,  shall  we  make  our  own  comforts,  or  go  without  them,  at  the  will 
of  a  foreign  nation  ?  He,  therefore,  who  is  now  against  domestic  manufacture,  must  be  for  reducing  us 
either  to  a  dependence  on  that  foreign  nation,  or  to  be  clothed  in  skins,  and  to  live  like  wild  beasts  in 
dens  and  caverns.  I  am  proud  to  say  I  am  not  one  of  these.  Experience  has  taught  me  that 
manufactures  are  now  as  necessary  to  our  independence  as  to  our  comfort ;  and  if  those  who  quote 
me  as  of  a  different  opinion  will  keep  pace  with  me  in  purchasing  nothing  foreign,  where  an  equiv¬ 
alent  of  domestic  fabric  can  be  obtained,  without  any  regard  to  difference  of  price,  it  wall  not  bo 
our  fault  if  we  do  not  have  a  supply  at  home  equal  to  our  demand,  and  wrest  that  weapon  of  dis¬ 
tress  from  the  hand  which  has  so  long  wantonly  violated  it.” 

These  are  the  opinions  of  the  fathers  of  our  institutions.  But  his  col¬ 
league  ( Mr.  Andrew  Johnson)  in  a  speech  made  in  the  House  on  the  22d 
of  May,  on  the  naval  appropriation  bill,  and  reported  in  the  Globe  of  that 


9 


day,  (see  Appendix^)  contended  that  the  tariff  is  an  oppressive  and  iniquitous 
mode  of  taxation.  He  says  the  duty  is  always  added  to  the  price  of  the 
article.  If  this  were  so,  the  price  of  the  article  would  be  increased  to 
the  amount  of  the  duty.  Now  for  the  facts.  Have  prices  risen  since  the 
passage  of  the  tariff  of  1842  ?  Here  is  a  table,  with  some  remarks  by  one 
of  the  Democratic  members  on  this  floor  from  Pennsylvania,  (Mr.  Brod 
head,)  showing  the  effect  of  the  tariff  of  1842  upon  iron  and  coal,  the  great 
staple  articles  of  that  State  : 

Extract  from  a  speech  of  Mr.  Broadhead  on  the  tariff  \  April  27,  1844. 

“Iam  prepared  to  show  that  the  price  of  coal  and  iron  is  now  less  than  it  was  before  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  1842,  which  increased  the  duty  from  $1  26  to  $1  75  per  ton  on  coal,  and  on  iron  in 
about  the  same  proportion.” 

********* 


“Now,  sir,  here  are  the  prices  at  which  it  (coal)  sold  before  and  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
1842,  in  the  principal  markets  ; 


Year. 

Philadelphia. 

New  York. 

Boston. 

1841 

$5  50 

$7  50 

$7  00 

1842 

5  00 

6  12^ 

6  25 

1843 

4  25 

4  50 

6  00 

1844 

4  00 

4  25 

5  75 

“The  same  thing  may  be  said  in  regard  to  iron  and  other  products  of  domestic  manufacture.  I  have 
a  table  before  me,  showing  the  prices  of  iron  from  1794  to  the  present  time,  by  which  it  appears  that 
P(  an sylvania  iron  was  never  as  cheap  as  it  is  now.  These  statements  show  that,  in  regard  to  any 
production  of  industry,  when  the  supply  of  the  raw  material  is  ample,  the  ingenuity,  industry,  and 
enterprise  of  our  people,  will,  by  the  effects  of  domestic  competition,  bring  down  the  price  to  the 
consumer  to  the  lowest  point  at  which  human  labor  can  effect  the  object  without  loss;  and  thatvery 
shortly  after  the  dread  of  foreign  interference  is  taken  away.  The  iron  men  of  this  country  have 
always  had  to  contend  with  a  heavy,  and  sometimes  ruinous  competition,  caused  by  the  large  amount 
of  the  poor  English  article  brought  into  our  markets.  So,  too,  with  our  mechanics.  Our  people 
engaged  in  the  coal  trade  cannot  compete  with  the  English  and  Welch  coal,  if  the  duty  is  reduced 
nearly  one-half,  as  is  proposed  by  the  present  bill,  and  will  be  obliged  to  resign  our  markets  to  for¬ 
eigners  ;  and  then  the  price  will  go  up  to  eight  or  ten  dollars  per  ton  again.  ” 

Mr.  P.  continued  :  Here  is  another  table,  exhibited  by  Mr.  Bidlack, 
another  Democratic  member  from  Pennsylvania,  in  his  speech  on  the 
tariff,  May  1,  1844  : 

“  The  inexhaustible  stores  of  iron  and  coal  spread  throughout  the  vast  expanse  of  this  wide  Re¬ 
public  will  always  prevent  any  danger  of  combinations  among  the  domestic  producers  to  demand 
unfair  prices  from  the  community.  The  present  tariff  may  have  lessened  importations,  and  thereby 
given  a  more  extensive  home  market  to  our  producers,  and  thus  operated  to  their  advantage  ;  but 
that  it  has  not  enhanced  the  prices,  will  appear  from  the  following  extracts  from  the  commercial  list 
of  Mr.  Childs: 

“Turn  to  August,  1841  and  1842,  and  February,  1844,  and  give  us  the  prices  of  iron  at  the 
said  dates,  respectively.  I  have  it,  6ir  ;  and  answer  as  follows  : 


August  21,  1841 — before  the  tariff. 


English  bar  iron  - 
American  bar  iron 
American  bar  iron,  rolled  - 

English  bar  iron  - 
American  bar  iron 
American  bar  iron,  rolled  - 

English  bar  iron  - 
American  bar  iron 
American  bar  iron,  rolled  - 
“  The  two  former  dates  si 
and  the  latter  date  shows  the  price  now,  while  the  tariff  is  in  full  operation.  The  result  is,  that  iron 
is  cheaper  now  than  it  was  before  the  present  ‘  heavy  duty ’  was  laid  upon  it !” 


August  6,  1842. 


February  10,  1844 — since  the  tariff. 


$75  00  to  $82  50 

per  ton. 

72  50  to 

77  50 

75  00  to 

82  50 

€€ 

65  00  to 

67  50 

€C 

72  50  to 

75  00 

C€ 

80  00  to 

85  00 

€C 

60  00  to 

65  00 

« 

70  00  to 

75  00 

€€ 

65  00  to 

70  00 

€€ 

icement  of  the  present  tariff, 

10 


Mr.  P.  said,  this  was  good  Democratic  proof  that  the  tariff  of  1842  had 
not  increased  the  price  of  iron  or  coal.  What  had  been  its  effect  upon  other 
articles  ? 


Cheese 

Lead 

Nails 

Common  shirting  - 
Sheeting 


9  cents  per  lb.  5  cents  per  lb. 

3  cents  per  lb.  3£  cents  per  lb. 

3  cents  per  lb.  4£  cents  per  lb. 

6  cents  per  yard  6  cents  per  yard. 

6  cents  per  yard  from  4  to  7  cents  per  yard. 

( Taken  from  Boston  price  current.) 


What,  then,  became  of  his  colleague’s  theory,  that  the  duty  is  always 
added  to  the  price  ?  What  became  of  his  wild  calculations,  that  the  tariff 
imposed  a  burden  of  many  millions  of  dollars  upon  the  American  people, 
and  near  $100,000  annually  upon  the  people  of  Tennessee.  Mr.  P.  said,  that 
the  impression  had  heretofore  prevailed, that  figures  could  notlie.  He  greatly 
feared  that  the  calculations  of  modern  Democracy  had  gone  very  far  to  bring 
figures  into  disrepute,  and  to  undermine  the  broad  basis  of  mathematics 
itself.  His  colleague  had  said,  if  laying  on  heavy  duties  will  bring  down 
the  price  of  manufactures,  increase  them,  and  the  manufacturer  would 
finally,  under  this  process,  have  to  sell  his  goods  for  nothing.  Mr.  P.  said, 
this  was  not  the  first  instance  of  the  absurd  conclusions  of  the  syllogistic 
inode  of  reasoning.  By  assuming  false  premises  you  can  prove  any  thing. 
An  enemy  to  our  institutions  might  say  that  General  Washington  was  a 
great  tyrant;  that  all  tyrants  ought  to  be  beheaded:  therefore,  General 
Washington  ought  to  have  been  beheaded.  But,  since  his  colleague  seemed 
to  be  fond  of  this  mode  of  reasoning,  he  would  give  him  a  specimen  in  his 
own  vein.  He  is  opposed  to  the  tariff — thinks  that,  the  lower  the  duty, 
the  lower  the  price  of  goods.  Then,  sir,  you  have  nothing  to  do  but  to 
keep  lowering  the  duty  until  you  come  down  to  the  free  trade  point,  and 
you  get  the  goods  for  nothing.  Mr.  P.  said,  it  was  a  bad  rule  that  would 
not  work  both  ways ;  and  thus,  he  met  one  absurdity  with  another.  Mr. 
P.  said,  it  was  the  competition  between  our  own  manufacturers,  and  be¬ 
tween  them  and  the  manufacturers  abroad,  that  brought  down  the  price  of 
goods.  It  was  one  of  the  happy  effects  of  this  policy,  (the  tariff,)  that  w7hile 
it  brought  down  the  price  of  goods  to  the  consumer,  it  afforded  a  home  mar¬ 
ket  for  our  agricultural  productions,  more  valuable  than  all  the  markets  of 
the  world  put  together,  and  threw  a  shield  around  our  domestic  labor  against 
the  pauper  labor  of  Europe.  Would  his  colleague  bringdown  the  honest, 
independent  mechanic  of  our  country  to  a  level  with  the  half-clothed, 
half-fed  paupers  of  England,  France,  and  Germany,  where  there  is  a  per¬ 
petual  struggle  to  keep  starvation  from  the  door  ?  Suppose  he  strikes  down 
the  tariff,  and  lets  the  products  of  this  kind  of  labor  in  upon  our  country : 
would  he  not  compel  our  mechanic  at  once  to  sell  the  products  of  his  labor  as 
cheap  as  they  do?  And  if  he  sells  as  cheap,  must  he  not  live  as  cheap? 
Would  he  be  willing  to  reduce  the  proud,  the  free  mechanic  of  this  country 
to  such  a  fate  ?  Would  he  have  him  to  lie  on  a  bed  of  straw,  or  dirt  floor — 
work  16  hours  a  day  for  8  or  10  cents — and  see  his  little  shivering,  ragged 
children  around  him,  crying  and  starving  for  bread  ?  Unless  he  is  prepared 
for  this,  let  him  not  be  willing  to  remove  all  protection  from  American  la¬ 
bor;  for  it  must  follow,  “  as  the  night  the  day,”  if  the  tariff  is  destroyed, 
and  free  trade  introduced  in  its  stead,  our  mechanics  must  be  borne  down 
and  ruined  by  this  pauper  competition  of  Europe.  Mr.  P.  here  exhibited 
a  table  ef  the  wages  of  labor  in  Europe,  as  follows : 


11 


Country  and 
district. 

Description  of  laborers. 

Yearly 

ges. 

wa- 

Daily  wages. 

With  or 

without 

board. 

With  or 

without 

dwelling. 

France. 

Calais 

Ploughmen 

_ 

_ 

$5  to 

to 

00 

Shepherds  - 

13 

- 

With  - 

With. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

15  cents. 

Boulogne 

Ploughmen  - 

- 

- 

7 

- 

With  - 

Without 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

10 

Without  - 

Without 

Havre 

Farm  servants  generally 

- 

8  to 

12 

- 

With  - 

With. 

Brest 

Farm  servants  generally 

- 

2  to 

6 

- 

With  - 

With. 

Nantes 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

17 

Without  - 

Without. 

Charente 

Farm  servants  generally 

- 

3  to 

8 

- 

With  - 

With. 

Bordeaux 

Laborers 

- 

.  - 

- 

24  to  30 

Without  - 

Without. 

Bayonne 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

18  to  12 

Without  - 

Without 

Marseilles 

Shepherds  - 

- 

- 

10  to 

12 

- 

With  - 

With. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

9  to  14 

With  - 

With. 

Corsica 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

22 

Without  - 

Without. 

Germany. 

Dantzig 

Farm  servants  • 

_ 

3  to 

4 

_ 

With  - 

With. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

9  to  14 

Without  - 

With. 

Mecklenberg  - 

Farm  servants 

- 

- 

5 

- 

With  - 

With. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

14 

Without  - 

With. 

Holstein 

Farm  servants 

- 

- 

4  to 

5 

_ 

With  - 

With. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

14 

Without  - 

With. 

Netherlands — 

South  Holland 

Farm  servants 

- 

- 

10  to 

12 

- 

W7ith  - 

With. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

12  to  32 

Without  - 

Without, 

West  Flanders' 

Farm  servants 

- 

- 

5 

- 

With  - 

With. 

Italy. 

Trieste 

Laborers 

. 

_ 

_ 

24 

Without  - 

Without. 

Laborers 

. 

- 

- 

12 

With 

With. 

Istria  - 

Laborers 

- 

- 

16  to  20 

Without  - 

Without. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

8  to  10 

With  - 

With. 

Lombardy 

Laborers 

- 

- 

- 

8  to  16 

With  - 

With. 

Genoa 

Farm  servants 

- 

- 

4  to 

5 

_ 

With  - 

With. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

_ 

10  to  16 

With  - 

Without. 

Laborers 

- 

- 

_ 

_ 

Without  - 

Without. 

Tuscany 

Farm  servants 

- 

- 

2 

_ 

With  - 

With. 

Laborers 

■ 

- 

— 

12 

Without  - 

Without. 

Would  his  colleague  be  willing  to  see  the  tailors  struggling  against  such 
competition  as  this?  In  his  speech,  the  other  day,  he  took  occasion  to  al¬ 
lude  to  the  circumstance  of  his  connexion  with  that  class  of  mechanics; 
and  here,  Mr.  P.  said,  he  took  great  pleasure  in  bearing  his  humble  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  respectability  of  that  class  of  the  mechanics  of  our  country. 
He  numbered  many  of  them  in  his  district,  among  his  warm  personal  and 
political  friends,  and  there  was  no  part  of  the  community  more  honest  or 
more  intelligent.  If  his  colleague  should  succeed  in  breaking  down  the 
tariff,  and  letting  in  that  flood  of  goods,  of  every  description,  that  would 
rush  in  from  England,  France,  and  Germany,  what  would  become  of  the 
tailors  ?  Would  not  every  city,  town,  village,  and  hamlet,  in  this  country, 
be  packed  with  ready-made  clothing  from  cellar  to  rafters  ?  Could  our 
tailors  sell  their  labor  at  these  reduced  prices  ?  No.  What  would  they 
do,  then  ?  They  would  be  compelled  to  give  up  their  business  ;  they  would 
be  turned  out  of  house  and  home,  to  wander  about,  dependent  upon  the 


12 


cold  charity  of  the  world,  or  to  learn  new  trades,  (perhaps  in  theirold  age,) 
and  for  which  their  previous  habits  totally  disqualified  them.  Such  would 
be  the  inevitable  effect  of  this  system  of  free  trade  and  direct  taxation  upon 
the  mechanics  of  our  country.  As  he  had  observed,  the  fathers  of  our 
Republic  thought  very  differently  from  his  colleague  :  they  thought  that 
our  farmers,  our  mechanics  and  manufacturers,  should  be  protected,  sus¬ 
tained,  and  made  independent  of  the  whole  world.  They  set  this  great 
protective  system  in  motion.  It  has  been  in  operation  for  more  than 
fifty  years — and  what  has  been  the  result?  Are  there  any  privileged 
classes,  any  distinctions,  any  aristocracy,  here?  None,  none  whatever. 
We  all  stand  on  one  common  level — mechanic  and  professional  man  ; 
and  there  is  no  passport  to  favor,  affection,  or  distinction,  but  that  which 
is  won  by  honesty,  integrity,  and  talent.  Our  glorious  ancestors  acknow¬ 
ledged  no  distinctions;  all  classes  put  their  shoulders  to  the  revolu¬ 
tionary  wheel,  and  none  pushed  harder,  or  with  more  effect,  than  did 
the  shoemaker,  the  wagoner,  the  blacksmith,  and  the  printer,  in  the 
persons  of  the  illustrious  Sherman,  Morgan,  Greene,  and  Franklin.  His 
colleague  was  himself  a  strong  illustration  of  the  excellence  of  our  institu¬ 
tions,  and  the  happy  results  of  that  policy  which  our  fathers  taught  and 
practised.  He,  sir,  has  thrown  aside  his  shears,  his  thimble,  and  his  goose, 
and  occupies  a  seat  on  this  floor — one  of  the  proudest  stations  that  the  am¬ 
bition  of  man  can  aspire  to.  This  reflected  infinite  credit  upon  him  and 
the  institutions  of  our  beloved  country  ;  but  he  regretted  that  his  colleague 
was  so  much  mistaken  in  his  duty  (honestly  no  doubt)  to  the  honorable 
calling  to  which  he  belongs,  as  to  recommend  a  policy  that  would  inevita¬ 
bly  reduce  the  free  and  independent  mechanics  of  this  country  to  a  level 
with  the  paupers  of  Europe. 

His  colleague  had  favored  the  House  (in  his  speech  on  the  naval  appro¬ 
priation  bill)  with  a  labored  argument  in  favor  of  direct  taxation,  though 
he  disclaimed  being  an  advocate  of  it.  In  that  speech  he  pointed  out  the 
many  evils  that  would  be  avoided,  and  blessings  secured  to  the  country, 
and  particularly  to  Tennessee,  by  a  system  of  direct  taxation.  He  had 
long  since  thought  he  could  perceive  a  settled  design,  on  the  part  of  the 
leaders  of  modern  Democracy,  to  saddle  this  odious  system  on  this  country, 
whenever  they  should  think  that  it  was  safe  to  make  the  attempt.  As  an 
evidence  that  every  quarter  of  the  country  was  filled  with  Democratic  ad¬ 
vocates  of  this  doctrine,  he  would  read  an  extract  from  a  speech  of  Mr. 
J.  T.  Stuart,  of  Illinois,  on  the  tariff,  July,  1842,  and  published  in  the 
Appendix  to  the  Congressional  Globe,  pages  861,  862: 

“During  the  progress  of  this  debate,  however,  there  has  been  much  to  induce  the  apprehension 
that  it  is  seriously  contemplated  by  the  Democratic  party  to  carry  this  odious  system  into  practice 
whenever  they  may  have  the  power  of  doing  so.  It  has  been  advocated  by  the  gentlemen  from 
South  Carolina,  (Messrs.  Ruett  and  Pickets,)  by  the  member  from  North  Carolina,  (Mr. 
Daniel,)  by  the  member  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Davis,)  by  the  member  from  New  Hampshire, 
(Mr.  Burke,)  and,  at  the  commencement  of  this  session  by  my  colleague,  (Mr.  Reynolds.) 
Coming  thus  from  members  of  that  party,  from  every  quarter  of  the  Union,  and  from  every  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  party,  the  country  has  much  reason  to  apprehend  that  this  will  be  another  of  the  exper 
iments  of  that  party  upon  the  institutious  and  established  usages  of  the  country.’’ 

The  gentleman  from  Louisiana,  (Mr.  Slidell,)  in  his  speech  on  the  tariff, 
told  us  how  superior  this  system  of  direct  taxation  was  to  all  other  systems, 
but  concluded  that  it  was  unpopular  now,  and,  of  course,  “out  of  the 
question.”  Hear  what  he  said  on  this  subject: 

“Of  all  the  modes  of  raising  revenue,  direct  taxation,  in  the  shape  of  an  uniform  percentage 
upon  every  species  of  property,  real  and  personal,  or  upon  income,  is  probably  the  most  equitable 
that  could  be  devised.  It  is  the  only  means  by  which  the  rich  can  be  made  to  pay  their  fair  quota 


13 


for  the  support  of  the  Government  which  protects  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  property.  It  is- 
certainly  the  system  which  would  ensure  the  most  economical  administration  ;  for  all  experience 
shows  that  a  heavy  indirect  taxation  is  more  cheerfully  submitted  to  than  a  more  moderate  direct 
one.  The  same  person  who  cheerfully,  because  unconsciously,  pays  dollars,  in  the  shape  of  the 
enhanced  price  caused  by  imposts  on  articles  of  daily  necessary  consumption,  would  receive  most 
ungraciously  the  visit  of  the  national  tax-gatherer  for  a  much  smaller  sum  ;  and  in  proportion  to 
the  grudging  reluctance  with  which  he  paid  the  tax  would  be  the  watchful  scrutiny  with  which 
he  would  criticise  its  expenditure. 

“■  But,  superior  as  the  system  may  be  in  theory,  there  are  many  and  fatal  objections  to  it  in  practice- 
It  would  increase  ten-fold  the  already  dangerous  and  enormous  patronage  of  the  F ederal  Govern¬ 
ment  ;  it  would,  indeed,  render  its  influence  all-pervading  and  irresistible.  It  would  interfere  with 
the  peculiar  sources  of  revenue  of  the  States.  It  is  opposed  to  the  opinions,  feelings,  and  prejudices 
of  the  people  ;  and  I  am  one  of  those  who  think  that  even  their  prejudices  should  be  respected  by 
a  sage  legislator.  There  is,  however,  one  conclusive  answer  to  the  suggestion  of  direct  taxation  ; 
if  the  alternative  were  presented  to  the  people,  certainly  there  is  no  State,  probably  not  a  district, 
in  the  Union,  where  a  majority  could  be  found  in  its  favor.  Whatever  advance  may  hereafter  be 
made  in  public  opinion  on  this  subject,  direct  taxation  is,  for  the  present,  out  of  the  question.” 

His  colleague  had  approached  this  subject  very  cautiously ;  said  he  was 
no  advocate  for  direct  taxation,  but  he  argued  for  it  very  strongly — a  lit¬ 
tle  stronger,  no  doubt,  than  his  co-laborers  in  this  deep,  subtle  game,, 
thought  was  altogether  prudent.  But  this  was  perhaps  attributable  to  the 
warmth  and  excitement  of  debate,  and  an  absence  of  that  control  over  him¬ 
self  which  a  few  years  here  might  give  him,  and  which  might  teach  him 
a  practical  application  of  Talleyrand’s  definition  of  language;  that  it  was 
designed  to  conceal  men’s  thoughts.  How  can  he  fail  to  be  an  advocate 
of  a  policy  that,  he  says,  will  save  the  country  millions,  and  Tennessee 
several  hundred  thousands  of  dollars  ;  which  will  prevent  wild  and  corrupt 
t  expenditures  of  the  public  treasure,  and  which  is  to  prevent  ruinous,  ini¬ 
quitous,  and  oppressive  taxation  upon  the  mechanics  and  laboring  classes  of 
society  ?  What !  he  observed,  are  we  to  be  taught  a  system  that  will  spread 
far  and  wide  such  invaluable  blessings  as  these,  and  yet  our  teachers  shrink 
back,  and  tell  us  that  they  are  no  advocates  of  such  a  system  ?  There  is 
something  secret,  hidden,  mysterious,  in  this — “  something  rotten  in  Den¬ 
mark.”  The  pear  is  not  yet  ripe ;  the  Democracy  have  never  yet  been 
sufficiently  firm  set  in  power  to  venture  upon  this  odious  system  of  direct 
taxation,  or  we  should  have  had  the  practice  as  well  as  the  theory  long 
since.  Mr.  P.  said  his  colleague  had  attempted  to  show,  by  a  calcula¬ 
tion,  that  Tennessee  contributes  $1,700,000  to  the  National  Treasury  ~ 
He  would  say,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  it  was  one  million. 
That  State  already  paid  three  direct  taxes — the  State  tax,  of  about  $100,000; 
the  county  tax,  and  a  corporation  tax.  In  the  name  of  all  that’s  charitable, 
said  Mr.  P.,  was  this  not  direct  taxation  enough  9  Would  the  people  of  that 
State  submit  to  an  additional  direct  tax  of  $1,000,000  ?  How  was  Tennes¬ 
see  to  pay  this  immense  sum  ?  Mr.  P.  said  he  would  give  the  plan  as  pro¬ 
posed  by  two  of  Governor  Polk’s  organs  in  Tennessee.  Here  is  that  of 
the  Jackson  Republican  : 


enue  from  mules  and  horses  - 

- 

- 

_ 

. 

-  $2,500,000 

Do 

neat  cattle 

- 

- 

_ 

_ 

_ 

-  1,000,000 

Do 

sheep 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

500,000 

Do 

swine 

- 

_ 

- 

- 

_ 

200,000 

Do 

land 

- 

- 

- 

_ 

_ 

-  12,000,000 

Do 

slaves 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-  4,000,000 

Total 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-  20,200,000’ 

The  Governor’s  organ  (Columbia  Democrat)  in  his  own  town  had  said  : 
u  Our  interest  is  the  same,  whether  the  revenue  is  raised  by  direct  taxes 
upon  our  property  or  by  import  duties  upon  the  goods  we  consume.”  By 


14 


this  system,  it  was  clear  that  the  tax  would  fall  principally  upon  the  farmer, 
whilst  the  rich  capitalist,  who  lives  upon  his  money,  “  clothes  in  fine  linen 
and  purple,”  and  drinks  his  foreign  wines,  was  not  taxed  at  all.  Mr.  P. 
said  the*  system  of  indirect  taxation,  or  the  tariff  system,  was  the  lightest, 
the  most  equal  and  just,  that  the  wit  of  man  had  ever  conceived  of.  By 
it,  none  paid  the  tax  but  those  who  consumed  the  goods.  This  was  volun¬ 
tary,  the  other  (direct  taxation)  was  involuntary.  The  tax  must  be  paid 
by  the  farmer,  whether  he  consumed  foreign  goods  or  not ;  and  the  plain 
cottager,  who  dressed  in  the  “  homespun,”  made  by  the  hands  of  his 
thrifty  wife,  was  doomed  to  pay  a  tax  for  the  support  of  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment,  upon  his  land,  negroes,  cattle,  &c.,  while  the  man  of  money ,  who 
has  no  ostensible  taxable  property,  goes  free. 

Mr.  P.  continued.  The  system  we  now  had  was  given  to  us  by  our 
forefathers,  and  he  trusted  in  God  that  it  would  never  be  changed.  Sir, 
said  he,  let  any  Administration  attempt  to  saddle  a  system  of  direct  tax¬ 
ation  upon  the  people  of  this  country  in  a  time  of  profound  peace,  and  you 
will  see  such  a  commotion  as  no  man  ever  beheld  in  this  land  before.  It 
would  shake  the  continent  to  its  centre,  and  would  probably  end  in  revo¬ 
lution,  anarchy,  and  civil  war.  He  did  not  recollect  any  attempt  to  levy 
a  direct  tax  for  the  support  of  the  General  Government  in  time  of  peace,  • 
since  that  which  produced  the  rebellion  in  Pennsylvania.  All,  no  doubt, 
recollected  the  whiskey  tax,  which  was  so  stoutly  resisted  by  the  honest 
Dutch  of  the  Keystone  State.  They  resisted  until  the  Government  arrayed 
itself  in  arms  against  them  ;  the  militia  were  called  out,  and  they  were  com¬ 
pelled  to  yield  to  the  superior  forces  of  the  Federal  Government.  Yes, 
sir,  (said  Mr.  P.,)  and  whenever  it  was  attempted  to  collect  the  vast  reve¬ 
nues  of  this  great  nation  by  direct  taxation  upon  the  people,  you  will  find 
that  not  only  the  Dutch  of  Pennsylvania,  but  the  Irish,  Scotch,  French, 
and  Natives,  every  man  that  had  an  American  heart  in  his  breast, Iwould 
resist  it,  and  resist  it  to  the  knife,  and  the  “  knife  to  the  hilt.” 

He  asked,  why  were  we  called  on  to  change  our  present  admirable 
system  for  this  odious  mode  of  direct  taxation  ?  We  now  collect  the  taxes 
which  support  this  Government  by  duties  on  foreign  goods,  imported  into 
this  country,  principally  from  England,  France,  and  Germany.  And  who 
is  benefited,  if  we  give  up  the  tariff  and  adopt  direct  taxation  ?  These 
foreign  nations,  of  course.  They  flood  our  land  with  their  goods  free, 
break  down  all  our  domestic  manufactures  and  our  mechanics — charge  us 
what  they  please  for  their  goods — and  the  prosperity  of  our  farmers  and 
mechanics  will  be  banished  by  the  onerous  direct  taxation  necessary  for 
the  support  of  their  Government.  This  would  be  the  result  of  the  free 
trade,  direct  taxation  policy  to  which  the  arguments  of  his  colleague  would 
lead.  Free  trade ,  indeed  !  Where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  No  where,  but  in  the 
distempered  imaginations  of  some  wild,  visionary  theorist.  It  would  be  lree 
to  foreigners,  but  how  would  it  be  to  us?  They  would  have  all  the 
benefit  of  the  trade,  while  a  mere  abstraction  of  freedom  would  be  left 
to  us,  without  any  of  its  realities.  Do  they  give  us  free  trade  ?  Look  at 
their  tax  upon  our  staple  agricultural  productions ;  it  amounts  almost  to 
prohibition.  They  tax  our  tobacco  1,000  per  cent.;  England  levies  a 
duty  of  more  than  $20,000,000  on  our  tobacco.  Yes,  sir,  if  a  farmer  from 
this  country  sends  $100  worth  of  tobacco  to  England,  the  tax  on  it 
is  $1,000.  And  yet  we  are  called  upon  to  open  our  ports  to  England 
and  all  the  world — to  invite  them  to  come — come  one,  come  all,  and 


15 


fill  our  land  with  foreign  goods,  and  you  shall  not  be  charged  one  cent 
for  the  privilege.  Sir,  (said  Mr.  P.,)  this  would  look  like  there  was 
springing  up  among  us  a  foreign  party ,  in  favor  of  foreign  Governments, 
and  opposed  to  our  own.  It  would  seem  to  him  that  they  could  not  have 
American  hearts  in  their  breasts,  and  advocate  such  doctrines.  They  had 
been  “  misborn,”  and  ought  to  be  transported  beyond  the  Atlantic,  to  more 
congenial  climes  and  Governments,  among  kings  and  queens  and  princes 
and  potentates,  where  a  privileged  class  u  are  born  booted  and  spurred, 
ready  to  ride  the  people  legitimately  by  the  grace  of  God.” 

His  colleague  had  said  that  no  nation  could  prosper  with  the  balance  of 
trade  against  it.  Let  us  see  how  this  free-trade  system,  or  that  which 
had  approached  more  nearly  to  it  than  any  thing  we  have  had  in  the  last 
quarter  of  a  century,  had  operated.  The  compromise  act  brought  the 
duties  down  to  a  horizontal  rate  of  20  per  cent.  And  when  we  were 
rapidly  approaching  that  low  rate  of  duty,  what  did  Mr.  Woodbury", 
Mr.  Van  Buren’s  great  State  financier,  say  in  his  report  of  1840? 
Here  it  is : 

“  The  difference  between  our  exports  and  imports  has  usually  been  in  favor  of  the  latter.  Sev¬ 
eral  years  ago  it  ranged  that  way  about  •e-ven  millions  of  deliars  annually  ;  but,  of  late,  the  average 
has  risen  to  near  twenty  millions  annually  ;  the  excess  of  imports  having  been,  in  1836  even, 
$61,316,995,  and  in  1839  $41,063,716.” 

By  this  statement  it  appeared  that  in  1836  the  balance  of  trade  against  us 
was  upwards  of  $61,000,000,  and  in  1839  upwards  of  $41,000,000.  Was 
there  any  wonder  that  we  had  been  involved  in  a  debt  of  $200,000,000  to 
t  foreign  countries  ?  In  the  short  space  of  two  years  our  imports  exceeded 
our  exports  by  $102,000,000.  Sir,  said  Mr.  P.,  this  was  the  result  of  a 
two-fold  cause — the  low  tariff,  inviting  the  goods  of  all  foreign  Govern¬ 
ments  to  our  shores ;  and  the  u  pet  bank  system,”  which  stimulated  credit 
to  the  highest  possible  pitch,  and  literally  set  the  country  on  fire  with  the 
spirit  of  speculation.  Who  was  responsible  for  this  tremendous  expan¬ 
sion  of  the  credit  system  ?  The  self-styled  Democratic  party.  For  ten 
yrears  preceding  their  war  upon  the  United  States  Bank,  there  had  been 
only  twenty-two  State  banks  chartered  in  the  United  States,  with  a  capi¬ 
tal  of  about  $8,000,000.  In  1830,  the  banking  capital  of  the  whole  coun¬ 
try  was  only  $110,000,000,  and  the  number  of  banks  was  about  three 
hundred.  In  1837,  the  number  of  banks  had  increased  to  677,  with  an  ag¬ 
gregate  capital  of  $378,000,000. 


16 


Here  Mr.  P.  exhibited  the  political  complexion  of  the  Legislatures 
which  had  chartered  those  banks,  by  the  following  table  : 


Number  of  banks  chartered ,  and  by  whom  chartered,  from  1S30  to  1837. 


STATES. 

Jackson  Legislatures. 

Anti-Jackson  Legislatures. 

New 

banks. 

Capital  created. 

New 

banks. 

Capital  created. 

Maine  - 

41 

$3,485,000 

New  Hampshire 

- 

- 

- 

5 

871,638 

Vermont 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

20 

$1,767,375 

Massachusetts  - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

72 

20,410,000 

Rhode  Island  - 

- 

- 

- 

9 

1,500,000 

9 

2,482,605 

Connecticut 

- 

- 

- 

9 

1,100,495 

9 

2,933,636 

New  York 

- 

- 

_ 

61 

17,220,047 

New  Jersey 

- 

- 

- 

8 

5,458,000 

Pennsylvania*  - 

- 

- 

- 

1? 

44,048,149 

Delaware 

- 

- 

- 

_ 

- 

_ 

367,175- 

Maryland 

- 

- 

- 

15 

22,924,505 

Virginia 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1,140,200 

North  Carolina. -j- 

South  Carolinat 

- 

- 

- 

3 

5,727,318 

Georgia 

- 

- 

- 

5 

4,006,938 

Florida 

- 

- 

- 

8 

9,725,000 

Alabama 

- 

- 

•  W 

1 

14,208,466 

Louisiana 

- 

- 

- 

11 

48,039,020 

Mississippi 

- 

- 

- 

10 

20,450,000 

Tennessee 

- 

- 

- 

2 

4,862,000 

Kentucky 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4 

9,264,640 

Illinois 

- 

_ 

- 

2 

2,800,000 

Indiana 

- 

* 

_ 

1 

1,980,000 

Arkansas 

_ 

- 

- 

2 

3,500,000 

Ohio  - 

- 

- 

- 

21 

11,445,614 

Michigan 

- 

- 

- 

16 

7,400,000 

247 

231,892,390 

114 

37,225,431 

114 

37,225,431 

133 

194,666,959 

*  Of  the  banking  capital  created  by  Pennsylvania,  $36,000,000  was  for  the  United  States  Bank 
of  that  State. 

j  The  banking  capital  of  North  Carolina  was  decreased  $595,000. 

t  The  principal  part  of  the  increase  was  under  the  Calhoun  administration. 

And  by  whose  counsel  and  advice  were  the  Legislatures  of  the  States 
stimulated,  encouraged,  and  almost  commanded,  to  engage  in  the  race  of 
competition  which  could  charter  the  most  banks  and  issue  the  largest 
quantity  of  bank  paper?  Let  this  circular  of  Mr.  Taney,  General  Jack¬ 
son’s  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  these  extracts  from  the  Globe,  the 
organ  of  the  then  Administration,  answer  the  question  : 

Circular  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  the  Deposite  Banks. 

“Treasury  Department,  September  26,  1833. 

“Sir  :  The  Girard  Bank  has  been  selected  by  this  department  as  the  depository  of  the  public- 
money  collected  in  Philadelphia  and  its  vicinity. 

“The  deposites  of  the  public  money  will  enable  you  to  afford  increased  facilities  to  commerce,  and 
to  extend  your  accommodations  to  individuals  ;  and,  as  the  duties  which  are  payable  to  the  Govern¬ 
ment  arise  from  the  business  and  enterprise  of  the  merchants  engaged  in  foreign  trade,  it  is  but 
reasonable  that  they  should  be  preferred  in  the  additional  accommodations  which  the  public  deposites 
will  enable  your  institutions  to  give,  whenever  it  can  be  done  without  injustice  to  the  claims  of  other 
classes  of  the  community.  I  am,  &c. 

“  R.  B.  TANEY,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury . 

“  The  President  of  the  Girard  Bank ,  Phil<tdelphia.,, 


17 


From  the  Globe  of  December  21,  1832. 

“The  intelligent  people  of  the  West  know  how  to  maintain  their  rights  and  independence  and  to 
*repel  oppression.  Although  foiled  in  the  beginning,  every  Western  State  is  about  to  establish  a 
State  bank  institution .  They  are  resolved  to  avail  themselves  of  their  own  State  credit,  as  well 
as  of  the  national  credit,  to  maintain  a  currency  independent  of  foreign  control .  ” 

And  again  : 

“So  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  and  Kentucky,  are  resolved  to  take  care  of  themselves  ” 

And  yet  again,  in  connexion  with  the  debts  and  expenditures  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  the  Globe  says  : 

“  Why  should  not  she  establish  a  bank  of  a  large  capital,  in  which  she  should  be  interested  as 
the  principal  stockholder  ?  Such  a  bank,  especially  if  the  faith  of  the  State  were  pledged  for  the 
redemption  of  its  paper,  would  command  universal  confidence,  and  would  doubtless  become  the  de¬ 
pository  of  the  public  funds  accumulated  in  Philadelphia.” 

Now,  said  Mr.  P.,  we  can  clearly  see  how*  it  was  that  the  country 
has  been  involved  in  a  debt  to  foreigners  of  $200,000,000.  It  has  been 
by  the  double  stimulus  of  a  low  tariff  and  a  flood  of  bank  paper.  If  an 
individual  buys  more  than  he  sells,  he  becomes  involved  in  debt  and  em¬ 
barrassment.  It  is  so  with  a  nation.  If  more  goods  are  brought  into  the 
country  than  are  sent  out,  the  balance  must  be  paid  in  specie,  or  its  equiva¬ 
lent  in  the  staple  products  of  the  country.  Fortunately  for  our  country, 
by  the  beneficial  operation  of  the  present  tariff,  the  trade  has  been  turned 
in  our  favor;  and,  instead  of  an  annual  balance  against  us  of  $40,000,000, 
or  860,000,000,  the  commercial  document,  which  will  soon  be  published, 
will  exhibit  about  $26,000,000  in  our  favor,  and  $20,000,000  of  that 
in  specie.  Official  documents  show  that  the  importations  of  specie 
for  the  last  year  wrere  $23,000,000,  and  the  exports  83,000,000 — a  clear 
balance  in  our  favor,  in  specie,  of  $20,000,000.  Mr.  P.  said  he  called 
upon  every  farmer  and  mechanic  and  professional  man  throughout  the 
whole  land  to  bear  witness  to  this  happy  result  of  the  tariff.  And  this, 
said  he,  is  the  system  that  the  Democratic  party,  as  they  call  themselves, 
with  James  K.  Polk  at  their  head,  would  break  down,  and  let  in  a  flood  of 
trash  from  foreign  countries,  in  the  shape  of  goods,  ruin  our  domestic  man¬ 
ufactures,  and  involve  the  country  again  in  debt  and  irretrievable  embar¬ 
rassment.  Governor  Polk  is  opposed  to  a  protective  tariff.  He  is  for  re¬ 
ducing  it  to  what  it  was  when  the  Whigs  came  in  power — to  a  horizontal, 
ad  valorem  duty  of  20  percent.  Thifwas  the  gentleman  who  did  vote 
a  tax  on  tea  and  coffee  in  1832,  when  the  Treasury  was  overflowing  with  an 
annual  surplus  of  $6,000,000  ;  yet,  when  the  revenue  was  reduced  to  about 
one-half  of  the  annual  expenditure,  under  the  compromise  act,  he  was  op¬ 
posed  to  increasing  the  tariff,  and  is  now  bitterly  opposed  to  the  tariff  of 
1842,  as  is  every  organ  in  his  interest  in  Tennessee.  They  denounce  it  as 
the  “  black  tariff.”  as  a  system  of  plunder,  by  which  the  poor  are  robbed, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  rich  manufacturer  and  capitalist.  The  country  will 
judge  between  the  two  systems  of  policy.  Under  the  one,  we  have  passed 
through  a  terrible  ordeal  of  many  years  of  suffering,  of  deep,  universal  dis¬ 
tress.  Under  the  other  the  country  has  risen  up,  refreshed  and  vigorous, 
like  a  strong  man  from  sleep  ;  every  interest,  every  branch  of  industry,  is 
reviving  and  prospering  beyond  any  thing  that  we  have  witnessed  for 
many  long  years;  and,  with  steadiness  in  the  present  tariff  policy,  and  the 
re-establishment  of  a  sound  national  currency,  we  may  soon  expect  a  re¬ 
turn  of  national  prosperity  never  exceeded  in  the  palmiest  days  of  the  Re- 
ublic.  * 


18 


APPENDIX. 

From  the  Globe  of  May  22,  1844. 

The  naval  appropriation  bill  being  under  consideration — 

Mr.  A.  JOHNSON  observed  that  he  did  not  know  that  the  remarks  he  was  about  to  make  would 
be  considered  strictly  in  order  ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  debate  had  taken  rather  a  wide  range,  he 
trusted  it  would  not  be  considered  improper  for  him  to  discuss  the  means  by  which  money  now 
proposed  to  be  appropriated  was  draw  a  from  the  people. 

He  should  oppose  this  bill  more  in  consequence  of  the  manner  in  which  the  money  it  appropriated 
was  raised,  than  for  any  other  consideration  ;  and  he  held  that  an  examination  of  the  system  by 
which  the  revenues  of  the  Government  were  raised  was  a  legitimate  course  of  argument.  Ever 
since  this  Congress  had  been  in  session,  there  appeared  to  him  to  have  been  a  disposition  to  indulge 
in  the  wildest  and  most  visionary  schemes  of  expenditure.  Mr.  J.  here  referred  to  various  items  of 
expenditure,  such  as  dry  docks,  navy  yards,  &c. ,  and  particularly  to  the  two  river  and  harbor  bills, 
involving  an  expenditure  of  one  million  two  hundred  thousand  dollars.  He  was  opposed  to  the  ap¬ 
propriations  in  this  bill,  in  consequence  of  the  system  by  which  the  money  was  procured.  We 
have  been  told  (said  he)  by  some  of  the  gentlemen  of  this  House,  in  a  document  published  by  them, 
of  the  evils  of  direct  taxation  ;  and  he  would  therefore  say  a  word  or  two  on  that  subject.  He  was 
not  an  advocate  for  direct  taxation  ;  but  he  held  that  it  would  be  a  cheaper  and  more  equitable  mode 
of  collecting  the  revenue  than  the  present  one.  At  all  events,  a  system  of  direct  taxation  would  put 
an  end  to  all  these  extravagant  and  visionary  schemes  of  expenditure  that  were  now  resorted  to.  In 
the  publication  he  referred  to,  the  authors  supposed  that  the  annual  revenues  collected  for  this  Gov¬ 
ernment  would  be  something  like  thirty-six  millions  ;  and  when  they  came  to  the  State  of  Tennessee, 
they  showed  that  if  this  money  was  to  be  collected  by  direct  taxes,  the  people  of  that  State  would  be 
alarmed  at  the  proportion  they  were  to  pay,  which  was  estimated  at  $1,700,000.  This  was  an  ad¬ 
mission,  however,  that  the  money  was  collected  from  the  people.  Now,  how  is  it  proposed  to  col¬ 
lect  this  $1,700,000  of  the  people  of  Tennessee,  but  by  indirect  taxation  ?  It  was  proposed  to  col¬ 
lect  it  by  a  mode  under  which  the  people  would  not  know  the  amount  collected  from  them  ;  that  is, 
to  take  the  money  out  of  their  pockets  by  deception,  or,  in  other  words,  by  the  operation  of  the  tariff. 
Now,  if  the  Southern  States  would  look  closely  into  the  subject,  they  would  find  that  such  a  system 
of  taxation  bore  more  hardly  on  them  than  any  other. 

He  went  on  to  contend  that  there  were  greater  advantages  to  the  people  in  direct  taxation  for  the 
support  of  the  Government,  for  thereby  much  would  be  saved  to  the  hard-working  people.  But 
they  were  told  that  this  expensive  pian  of  collecting  revenue  must  be  persisted  in  for  the  protection 
of  home  industry  ;  or,  in  other  words,  this  system  must  be  persisted  in,  that  the  few  might  be  bene¬ 
fited  at  th*e  expense  of  the  many.  It  was  admitted  that  £36,000,000  must  be  collected  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  Government,  and  this  sum  was  made  by  the  importing  merchants  to  form  part  of  the  first 
cost  of  the  goods.  The  merchants  transmitted  tRose  goods  to  various  parts  of  this  Union  for  sale, 
adding  thereon  fifty  per  cent,  as  profit ;  and  thus  it  would  be  seen  that  the  hard-working  consumer 
not  only  paid  $36,000,000  for  the  support  of  the  Government  to  benefit  a  few  manufacturers,  but 
fifty  per  cent,  thereon  as  profit  of  the  merchant. 

He  contended  that  the  argument  was  very  clear  in  favor  of  a  system  by  which  each  State  should 
collect  and  provide  its  proportionate  share  of  the  revenue  which  was  necessary  for  the  Government. 
By  such  a  system,  much  would  be  saved  in  the  cost  of  collection.  He  calculated  that  of  the 
$1,700,000  which  Tennessee  would  supply,  she  could  save  $92,000,  which  was  an  important  sum. 
i.  He  then  showed  the  operation  of  the  protective  system  on  the  mechanic,  proving  that,  in  relation 
to  the  mechanic  classes,  this  protection  of  home  industry  was  a  system  of  humbug,  by  which  no 
one  was  benefited  but  the  wealthy  manufacturer.  Indeed,  to  the  working  classes  it  was  an  iniqui¬ 
tous  system  of  taxation.  But  (he  inquired)  was  the  system  for  which  the  people  were  so  honestly 
taxed  a  protection  of  home  industry  ?  Of  the  amount  of  capital  vested  in  manufactures  and  in 
agriculture,  he  said  this  system  caused  $500  vested  in  manufactures  to  yield  $72 — more  than  1,000 
vested  in  agriculture  ;  and  yet  they  were  protecting  home  industry  !  To  be  perfect,  the  protection 
of  home  industry  must  be  its  protection  by  the  several  and  individual  States  within  their  own  char¬ 
tered  limits;  but  if  that  were  resorted  to,  they  would  hear  less  of  protection  of  home  industry. 

Upon  such  a  principle  as  this,  they  might  go  on  increasing  the  amount  of  duties  progressively, 
until  they  brought  down  the  price  of  the  articles  to  nothing  at  all.  The  Government  w ould  then 
be  in  the  receipt  of  a  large  revenue  from  duties  on  imports,  and  the  goods  imported  would  be  pro¬ 
cured  by  the  consumer  for  nothing.  Was  there  ever  a  greater  absurdity  attempted  to  be  palmed 
off  upon  the  public  5  It  was  an  insult  to  the  intelligence  of  the  people. 


19 


Another  extraordinary  proposition  contained  in  this  literary  curiosity,  to  which  he  had  already 
'  referred,  was  that  we  were  actually  buying  five  dollars’  worth  of  foreign  articles  for  every  dollar’s 
worth  that  we  sold  of  our  own.  Was  there  ever  a  country  that  was  prosperous  and  happy  while 
she  bought  more  than  she  sold  ?  How  long  would  a  Government  exist  under  such  circumstances  ? 
&  Mr.  Stewart  said,  if  the  gentleman  would  examine  the  argument  in  that  report,  he  would  see, 

not  that  we  purchased  five  dollars’  worth  of  foreign  articles  for  every  dollar’s  worth  that  we  sold  of 
our  own,  but  that  we  purchase  and  consume,  in  the  form  of  manufactured  goods,  five  dollars’  worth 
of  agricultural  produce  for  every  dollar’s  worth  of  agricultural  produce  that  we  export. 
f  Mr.  Johnson  proceeded.  The  gentleman  might  attempt  to  explain  the  matter,  but  it  clearly  put 

him  to  as  great  difficulty  to  understand  himself,  as  it  did  him,  (Mr.  Johnson,)  to  understand  him. 
Was  the  gentleman  unacquainted  with  that  plain  principle  of  political  economy,  that  when  the 
balance  of  trade  exists  against  a  Government,  that  Government  must  decline  in  proportion  to  the  extent 
of  that  balance  ?  But  they  were  called  upon  to  imitate  the  example  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  prosperity 
of  that  country  had  been  greatly  vaunted.  Prosperous  !  yes ;  prosperous  in  the  creation  of  a  national' 
debt ;  prosperous  in  the  imposition  of  burdens  upon  the  people ;  prosperous  in  building  up  an  aris¬ 
tocracy.  He  might  refer  to  various  authorities  to  show  the  prosperous  condition  of  Great  Britain, 
but  he  would  not  unnecessarily  detain  the  committee. 

Mr.  J.  adverted  to  the  distributive  policy  as  a  concomitant  of  the  high  protective  tariff.  Who, 
he  asked,  was  the  great  advocate  of  that  policy — a  policy  by  which  the  people  became  the  recipients 
of  a  bounty  first  collected  from  themselves.  The  advocate  of  this  strange  mode  of  enriching  the 
people  was  the  man  who  was  to  be  placed  at  the  head  of  the  administration  of  this  Government — 
the  man  who  was  at  one  time  found  advocating  the  principles  of  one  party,  and  sometimes  of  another. 

Mr.  J.  next  adverted  to  the  alleged  dissensions  in  the  Democratic  ranks.  For  his  own  part,  he 
intended  to  act  for  himself,  and,  as  to  any  insinuations  that  had  been  spread  abroad  in  reference  to 
him,  he  repelled  them.  He  did  not  admit  the  right  of  any  individual  to  set  himself  up  as  the  su¬ 
pervisor  or  censor  of  all  who  belonged  to  the  Democratic  party,  and  to  institute  a  Procrustean  bed! 
for  their  opinions. 


3  0112  061614324 


